Got me, not into brit slangPretty sure it means "fart" in British English.
Got me, not into brit slangPretty sure it means "fart" in British English.
Nope;Pretty sure it means "fart" in British English.
INFORMAL•BRITISH
verb
spend time in ineffectual activity.
"we can't faff around forever"
noun
a great deal of ineffectual activity.
"there was the usual faff of getting back to the plane"
I see this site as a learning experience and a buyer's guide for new gear based on a variety of criteria OTHER than just measurements, but I don't think it means I have to own only gear that measures 100% perfect, nor do I have to love only that gear. Obviously, you agree with me in everything I've said thus far because:This being a site dedicated to perfectionist audio and using the best science of the day to verify that the gear is providing the best performance level available.
I use a $40 SansaDisc mp3 player for my music on-the-go.
I don't "declare" anything, I listen to it. If I can't tell the difference, well then... you've got your answer.Just curious, what is “audibly transparent” to you? How do you declare a DAC as being one?
Well, one needs to put the "measures poorly" into proper context.My mantra: if it sounds good to me, I enjoy it. I don't need graphs or measurements OR some snake oil to inform what sounds good to me -- I was born with two ears, imperfect instruments in their own right. Do I like buying gear that measures well? Yes. Do I care about it much if it sounds good to me, even if it measures like doo-doo? No. I just don't have the time on this earth to obsess over everything. Either it sounds good, or it doesn't. Fortunately, most gear I've listened to sounds good (and some of that gear I've found later on measures poorly, but I don't care).
Fair enough. Speakers do sound different. DACs (and many amps), by and large, do not. That said, I'm also not constantly buying and upgrading speakers and other equipment because: 1. can't afford to, 2. not worth the faff.I suggest learning how to measure room response.
Most of those anomalies I mention are in speaker response. Not "micro" details.
The reverse of this is also true: if you know your device measures well within the range you intend to use it, no need to worry. Or hell, if you didn't read the measurements and you own gear that falls within the turd category, no need to worry anyway unless you hear real awful consequences at normal volumes: clipping, distortion (and not the pleasant kind), thermal noise, etc.The beauty of measurements is: if you already know that your use will entail the rather extreme requirements, measurements exclude the device before having to try it.
B-I-N-G-O was his name-o. You need a partner in crime that can switch it. And to make sure that's random, she should flip a coin to determine whether it's A or B. Straight preference. on your part. Well really, that's not entirely fair--what if it sounds better on some material and not others? You should unequivocally state which it is. I mean you'll know right?It's true, my original expectation was blown out of proportion, but I was able to prove that specific EQ profiles, at least in this case, were able to improve my ability to pick correctly.
Then again, after having just completed another set of ABX runs with AAC, I'm more inclined to suggest that this gradually increasing success rate was probably just a result of familiarity over time.
It's extremely difficult to perform these tests in a controlled environment.
NO, NO, NO. Now you're really in free fall down the rabbit hole--i.e. if I can't hear something that I assume must exist because ...reasons (others say so, etc) then it's my equipment that is at fault--it simply doesn't have the resolving power to appreciate the difference, thus I must upgrade.Thank you, I tried my best. I originally just wanted to do 1-2 tests, but ended up doing 40+ to be absolutely sure. Everybody gets attached to ideas, it's just important to stay honest with yourself.
I was convinced that the difference was astronomical in the beginning, but had to accept that wasn't the case after I had completed the tests. However, I did score alright in certain scenarios.
Currently testing 44.1/16bit vs. 192/24bit
So far it's mostly 4-5/10, regardless of EQ, but I'm guessing most of the time. Nothing clearly distinguishable tbh.
I don't see it, but then again my equipment is mid-level at best.
Perhaps a poor translation for an idiomatic expression that would best be rendered in English as "pissing into the wind" or something? Since there is the idiom "making water" for urinating, who knows? LOL
The objectivist is interested in provable measurements, the subjectivist in the totality of their personal experience.
Neither is more correct than the other.
the problems arise when a subjectivist thinks their opinion is fact, and the objectivist thinks that measurements correlate to a subjectivists impression of better.
Chasing the Dragon. But I disagree re the hearing--subjectively it's just as much fun, its just more expensive. A lot more. My Ar-5's + Marantz 1200 int amp + Dual TT/Shure cartridge =776.00 in 1972 Last expensive outlay Infinity IRS Gamma + 2 Classe 500w monoblocks + VPI TT + Zeta tone arm + Koetsu Cartridge + Audio Research tubed preamp 1993 = something I don't want to add up. Thankfully, got off that wheel of addiction. Now the speakers are homebrewed, the amps are used and off ebay, and sourced off a PC to a 2002 DEQX. And I'm pretty damn happy most days.I have a theory that subjectivists in audio are constantly striving for the feeling that they got with that first hit - the sound they heard on their first proper hifi system with decent speakers. The jump forward in quality from whatever midi system, etc they listened to music on previously. But the problem is they were much younger - it's impossible to get that same sound again due to natural age related hearing loss.
I believe you hit the old nail smack center. Using the drug analogy someone else mentioned upthread, it's the fiddlin and diddlin and arming up the amps, cleaning the stylus, pouring the single malt, double checking the cables aren't touching the ground, magic brick is exactly where the tape marks indicate, .... There's a well known finding that you can take a drug addict, put him in a brain scanner and even seeing the dope of choice makes the machine go clickety clack, just as if he were actually using the drug.If you're involved in pro audio [and intend to get paid], you come to the point where you have heard the recording you have been working on so many times, all you can hear is the difference tone---everything that's wrong. The meaning of "Faff", far as I can tell, to to dither, and I don't mean jiggling around the LSB. Audiophiles often dither, and wanting an audio system where there's no tweaking is usually the opposite of what a self-described audiophile is all about. In any case, many of the people on this forum are involved in pro audio and many are "Audiophiles", so spiritofjerry may have landed in the wrong place, seeing as the central issues of this place are of no importance to him.
If only it were that simple (it isn’t).
Subjectivists tend to be subjectively wrong. Evidence: a DBT is actually a subjective test, but it just happens to be controlled, thus giving the subjective impressions about the actual sound waves. And yet the vast majority of subjectivists thoroughly reject and dispute what DBT tells them, because it often tells them that their sighted, uncontrolled subjective views on the sound waves are — wrong.
Then they are unhappy. Then they go on these long, ranting campaigns about how controlled listening tests are all flawed in at least one — or preferably many — ways.
Just curious, what is “audibly transparent” to you? How do you declare a DAC as being one?
I don't "declare" anything, I listen to it. If I can't tell the difference, well then... you've got your answer.
To distinguish it between any other DAC. I haven't heard a difference in any of them that I can reliably tell (except one, but I'm to believe it was probably defective).@spiritofjerry I did not mean to offend... I am genuinely trying to understand what do you listen for to call a DAC “audibly transparent” (your own words)? The difference between what and what?
To distinguish it between any other DAC. I haven't heard a difference in any of them that I can reliably tell (except one, but I'm to believe it was probably defective).
A "faff" in English is an activity that is an annoyance /hindrance /of little consequence.Pretty sure it means "fart" in British English.
That's a fair assumption, and as such, I think you can say there is no such thing as transparency, or isn't that what you were setting me up for all along? I didn't know this was going to take a philosophical turn, but alas...Sorry, mate. I do not see how failing to hear a difference between DACs leads to their “transparency” conclusion. For all we know, they all can be identically crappy thus indistinguishable. But that would not make them transparent a single bit.
That's a fair assumption, and as such, I think you can say there is no such thing as transparency, or isn't that what you were setting me up for all along? I didn't know this was going to take a philosophical turn, but alas...
Shoot, I don't even care about it, I was just answering your repeated questions, obviously falling into a lecture trap. I don't care if it's "transparent" or not because I can't reliably hear a difference. If I did, then I might care. We done now?ask me if I care about this transparency.